From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 10 18:53:52 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D6DA8C2; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 18:53:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from udns.ultimatedns.net (unknown [IPv6:2602:d1:b4d6:e600:4261:86ff:fef6:aa2a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAFF6BDD; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 18:53:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ultimatedns.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by udns.ultimatedns.net (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id sAAIs6UW009583; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 10:54:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bsd-lists@bsdforge.com) To: "FreeBSD CURRENT" From: "Chris H" Subject: What's the least required in base to be functional? Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 10:54:06 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=fixed MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-id: <35a0310882e1d8483662707a3925cbc9@ultimatedns.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: FreeBSD toolchain X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 18:53:52 -0000 Apologies. That may not have been the best choice of titles. What I'm trying to determine, is what is the very least I will require in base, to actually build a userland build environment. NOTE; this all concerns -CURRENT (recent 11). Point being, while I recognize that clang/llvm is the default on 10+. I have been building/installing world/kernel with make.conf(5) WITHOUT_CLANG=true FAVORITE_COMPILER=gcc src.conf(5) WITHOUT_CLANG=true on RELENG_8, and RELENG_9, and 11 (as of 1 mos ago) Everything worked as anticipated. But a recent (5 days ago) build/install on -CURRENT. Followed by a make delete-old _seemed_ to have an adverse affect. More specifically; having used the above declarations always resulted in the make delete-old removing clang from base. Which was fine. As I had intended to experiment with the different versions of lang/clang, and devel/llvm, via installing from ports. But my recent attempt using the above method, resulted in my being unable to build many ports. x11/* mostly. I ran into problems with "xmmintrin.h" not being found. Or other problems, where declarations were not supported in gcc(4.8,4.9, or 5). So what exactly *must* be installed in base to allow for a more *granular* approach to testing/building? Used to be IIRC, fmake, or bmake. But that's likely a pretty dated recollection. Thank you for all your time, and consideration. --Chris